Facts
The appellant [A.] was placed in pre-trial detention on 15 March 2023. The Public Prosecutor's Office I of the Canton of Zurich conducted a criminal investigation against him for multiple threats, etc. On 30 August 2023, the Public Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against [A.] and requested a guilty verdict and punishment. At the same time, the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the order of precautionary detention. The Coercive Measures Court of the Winterthur District opened the detention proceedings GH230167-K. On 12 September 2023, the Public Prosecutor's Office withdrew the indictment and filed a new one. The Public Prosecutor's Office requested the independent order of a measure for a person incapable of committing a crime pursuant to Art. 374 f. CrimPC on 12 September 2023. As part of this request, the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the order of precautionary detention due to the risk of recidivism.
The Coercive Measures Court of the Winterthur District placed [A.] in precautionary detention with the ruling GH230167-K of 13 September 2023 and limited it until 6 December 2023. [A.] filed a complaint, which the High Court of the Canton of Zurich upheld with the decision UB230148-O of 12 October 2023, because the withdrawal of the indictment of 30 August 2023 eliminated both the request for precautionary detention and the basis for its order.
The High Court lifted the ruling of the Coercive Measures Court in the detention proceedings GH230167-K and established that [A.] had been in detention without a formal detention title from 15 September 2023 to 2 October 2023. The High Court ordered that [A.] remain in detention until the Coercive Measures Court decides on the Public Prosecutor's Office's request of 12 September 2023 for the order of precautionary detention.
On 12 October 2023, the Coercive Measures Court of the Winterthur District ordered the continuation of the criminal procedural detention in the form of precautionary detention until 12 April 2024 in the proceedings GH230196-K. [A.] filed a complaint, which the High Court rejected with the decision UB230163-O of 8 November 2023.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the cantonal authority applied federal law correctly. The appellant claimed that the formal and substantive requirements for the order of precautionary detention were not met. He argued that there was no risk of recidivism and that the order of precautionary detention was a preventive detention in the sense of a purely securing police measure, which was foreign to criminal procedural law.
The Federal Court found that the risk of recidivism pursuant to Art. 221 para. 1 lit. c CrimPC for the purpose of maintaining the interest in preventing further serious offenses was not unconstitutional and did not violate fundamental rights. The lower court had set out the requirements for the risk of recidivism and presented its…